Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara told the High Court of Justice on Sunday that the government has failed to comply with a court directive to adopt effective enforcement measures for the conscription of haredi (ultra-Orthodox) yeshiva students, in a step that has amplified warnings of an emerging rule-of-law crisis amid wartime personnel shortages.
The attorney-general’s position, delivered amid ongoing “implementation petitions” seeking judicial supervision of the state’s compliance, came against the backdrop of a sharply worded decision by Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg.
His decision granted the government 45 days in late 2025 to present an enforcement policy and cautioned that prolonged non-enforcement could erode public willingness to serve and undermine the rule of law.
In a Justice Ministry update distributed in recent days, officials described a belated inter-ministerial process now underway to map potential “civilian-economic” enforcement tools and to align them with the military’s conscription pipeline, after months in which the court’s instructions were repeatedly discussed but not translated into government decisions.
Years without durable framework for yeshiva students's exemptions
The legal confrontation involves a years-long absence of a durable statutory framework exempting yeshiva students from service. In March 2024, the High Court issued interim directives that tied continued state funding for institutions to students’ draft status and signaled that, absent legal authorization, the state could not sustain blanket exemptions indefinitely.
Then, in June 2024, the court ruled more broadly that in the absence of a legal framework authorizing sweeping exemptions, there was no lawful basis to refrain from drafting haredi students – and no legal basis to subsidize institutions on the premise of such exemptions.
After limited movement on the ground, petitioners returned to court demanding concrete enforcement. In November 2025, Sohlberg’s opinion framed the issue as “a matter of life and death,” stressing the army’s stated need for thousands of additional soldiers and warning that the mass, ongoing violation of the draft obligation “is unacceptable,” particularly during wartime.
According to a Justice Ministry paper summarizing the government’s internal follow-up, the IDF has expanded its conscription activities and is increasing the volume of draft-related notices, with a stated objective of scaling up significantly in 2026 compared to 2024-2025.
The same update described figures relating to the number of notices issued and projected, and noted that the government has been examining non-criminal “civilian-economic” tools intended to increase compliance.
By and by, it acknowledged legal, administrative, and political constraints across ministries.
The attorney-general’s stance, however, is that these internal discussions do not constitute the court-ordered policy adoption required by the ruling, and that the government’s failure to formally decide on effective measures constitutes noncompliance.
The issue has intensified as the war has extended the burden on reservists and sharpened public resentment over societal inequality when it comes to military service – pressures repeatedly cited in judicial reasoning and by petitioners seeking enforcement.
Simultaneously, ultra-Orthodox coalition factions have continued to press for legislation that would restore or formalize broad exemptions, framing conscription as incompatible with communal norms and religious study.
The result has been a rolling political stalemate: the IDF’s human resources demands and court supervision on one side, and coalition stability concerns on the other.
The legal question is whether the government’s pace and substance meet the requirements of the court’s own rulings, or whether stronger judicial intervention is warranted. Sohlberg signaled in his 2025 decision that the court was, at that stage, setting guidelines rather than dictating specific steps, but warned that continued neglect could lead to more pointed orders.